F 1435 

B79 
Copy 1 




Book. '^^^ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/wasbeginningdayoOObowd 



/ 

WAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE 

MAYA MONTH NUMBERED ZERO 

(OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 



BY 



CHARLES p/feoWDITCH 



CAMBRIDGE 

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 

1901 



r^ 



'rdS 



^^^ 



^yt. 



\ 



In Exchange 
Amer. Ant. Soo. 
25 il I'^O? 



t 





WAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE MAYA MONTH 
NUMBERED ZERO (OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 

Goodman, in his elaborate and valuable book on the Maya 
Inscriptions, has made up his Tables on the supposition that the 
beginning day of the month was not called Day i, but Day 20, 
giving the day this number because in his view the Mayas counted 
the number of days which had passed and not the current or 
passing day. That is, the Mayas, according to Goodman, used 
the same plan in counting their days which we use in counting 
our minutes and hours and which we depart from in counting our 
days. Thus, when we speak of January i, we do not mean that 
one day has passed since January came in, but that the month 
of December has passed and that we are living in the day which 
when completed will be the first day of January. But when we 
say that it is one o'clock, we do not mean that we are living in 
the hour which when passed will be the first hour of the day 
or half-day, but we mean that one whole hour of the day or 
half-day has fully passed. Goodman's idea is that the Mayas used 
this system in counting their days of the month, their kins, uinals, 
tuns, katuns, and cycles. In other words he considers that the 
beginning day of the month Pop was not i Pop, but 20 Pop, 
the beginning day of Uo was 20 Uo ; that the beginning kin of a 
uinal was Kin 20, the beginning uinal of a tun was Uinal 18, the 
beginning tun of a katun was Tun 20, that the beginning katun 
of a cycle was Katun 20, and that the beginning cycle of a grand 
cycle was Cycle 13. The reason why Goodman substitutes 18 and 
13 for 20 in the case of the uinals and cycles respectively is that 
these are the numbers of uinals and cycles which are needed 
to make one of the next higher units in his scale of numeration. 



2 WAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE MAYA MONTH 

Without considering the truth or error of his view in regard to 
the cycles, katuns, etc., let us try to solve the following questions : 

I St. Did the Mayas count the days of their month by the 
day which had passed, as we count our hours ? 

2d. Was the number which they gave to the beginning day 
of the month o or 20 ? 

For our answers to these questions, let us turn to pages 46-50 
of the Dresden Codex. These pages contain three rows of twenty 
month dates each, and each of these dates is reached with but two 
exceptions by counting forward from the preceding date the 
number of days specified in red at the bottom of the pages, the 
first date of each row on page 46 being the regular number of days 
distant from the last date of the same row on page 50. 

In the first row of dates, we find that the third date on page 48 
is 12 Chen. The number of days at the bottom of the page which 
need to be counted forward in order to reach the fourth date is 8. 
If the beginning day of the month were marked by the Mayas with 
I, then the last day would be marked with 20, and by adding 8 
days to 12 Chen, we should reach 20 Chen. But the date is not 
20 Chen. The month is Yax, — the month immediately following 
Chen, — and the glyph which takes the place of the number 
has a form resembling two half-circles placed side by side. In 
other words, in this case 8 days from 12 Chen reach ? Yax, and as 
far as the first proposition is concerned, it is immaterial whether 
the form above given is called o or 20. Eight days have taken us 
out of the month Chen into the next month Yax, and to a day 
of that month which is not i Yax, but must be a day preceding 
I Yax, whether that is called o Yax or 20 Yax. 

Again, the first date of the first row of month dates on page 50 
is 10 Kankin, and the number at the bottom of the page to be 
added in order to reach the second date is 90. Counting forward 
90 days from 10 Kankin we should reach 20 Cumhu, if the begin- 



NUMBERED ZERO {OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 3 

ning day of the month is i Cumhu. But the month is not Cumhu 
nor is it Pop, but it is undoubtedly the glyph for the five supple- 
mentary days, Uayeb. The glyph which takes the place of the 
number is the same as that which has just been found before Yax. 
This is additional evidence that the months began with o or 20 and 
not with I. 

Again, on the first date of the second row of page 50 is 15 
Cumhu, and the number of days to be added in order to reach the 
next date is 90, which appears at the bottom of the page. Counting 
forward this number of days from 15 Cumhu, we should reach 
20 Zotz if the beginning day of the month were i Zotz. But the 
month is clearly Tzec, and the number is that which we have 
already found twice before as meaning o or 20. 

These cases would seem to show that after passing day 19 
of any month, we reach the beginning day of the next month, and 
that this day is found with the glyph which means o or 20. 

Against this is the evidence of the last month date of the third 
row of page 49, which is clearly 9 Mac, and the number to be 
added at the bottom of the page is 236. This would take us 
to 20 Xul, if the beginning day of Xul is i Xul, but to o or 20 
Yaxkin if the beginning day of Xul is o or 20, The first month 
date of the third row of page 50 is o or 20 Xul, This, I think, 
is clear, although the Xul glyph is not exactly like the other 
glyphs of this month. 

Here then are three cases which support Goodman's view and 
one against it. The weight of evidence is therefore in favor of his 
system so far. 

In the Inscriptions there are not very many cases where the 
month has the zero or twenty sign attached to it, and there are 
still fewer cases where this occurs in a position where the question 
can be decided from the context as to whether the o or 20 is the 
last day of one month or the beginning day of the next month. 



4 IVAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE MAYA MONTH 

On the inscription of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque, 
however, we have a month date which is 5 Ahau 3 Tzec. This is 
on R S 10. On R 8 to 9 we find i . 16 . 7 . 17 ., if the thumb with 
the katun glyph means i, as it almost surely does. Counting 
forward this number of days from 5 Ahau 3 Tzec, we should reach 

5 Caban 20 Zip if the month begins with i, or 5 Caban o or 20 
Zotz if the beginning day is o or 20. On S 12 R 13 is 5 Caban 
o or 20 Zotz. The form of the number glyph cannot fail to recall 
that of the similar glyphs in the Dresden Codex. 

De Rosny has given in his " Compte-Rendu d'une Mission 
Scientifique," published in the " Memoires de la Societe d'Ethno- 
graphie," an admirable reproduction of the wooden inscription 
which came from Tikal. On Plate 12 of this work we find on 
A B I, 3 Ahau 3 Mol, and on B 2 A 3, we have 2 . 11 . 12. By 
counting forward this number of days from 3 Ahau 3 Mol we 
reach 6 Eb o or 20 Pop, if the month begins with o or 20, 
but 6 Eb 5 Uayeb if the month begins with i. This is a 
particularly strong case, for the month is surely Pop and the 
number is certainly not 5, and is like those of the manuscripts and 
of the Temple of the Cross, which we have just commented on 
and which are in all probability O or 20. 

Again, on a part of a doorway in El Cayo, on C D 3 we find 13 
Cimi 19 Zotz ; on H 3 G 4 is a number which seems to be 8 . 18 . 6. 
Counting forward we reach 9 Eb 20 Uo, if the month begins with 
I, or 9 Eb o or 20 Zip, if the months begin with o or 20. 
Although the glyphs for Uo and Zip resemble each other, yet the 
date on I J I is clearly 9 Eb o or 20 Zip. It should be said, 
however, that the number on H 3 G 4 is somewhat effaced and 
very unusual, in showing 18 uinals, and that there is another date 
5 ? 3 Yaxkin on E F 3. 

On the other hand the inscription of the Temple of the Cross 
shows us on D 3 C 4, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and on D 5 C 6, is 1.9.2., 



NUMBERED ZERO {OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 5 

which is equal to i year 177 days. Counting forward this number 
of days from 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu we reach 13 Ik 20 Mol, if the month 
begins with i, or o or 20 Chen, if the month begins with o or 20. 
On C D 9 we find 13 Ik ? Mol. However, on D 13 to C 15 we 
have the long number i. 18.3. 12.0., which counted forward from 
13 Ik 20 Mol brings us to 9 Ik 15 Zac, which is not found any- 
where near by. But if we count forward this number from 13 Ik o 
or 20 Chen, we should reach 9 Ik 15 Ceh, which is found on E F 
I. It would seem, therefore, that the glyph for Mol had been 
carved in error for that of Chen. 

Other cases where o or 20 probably occur before the month 
sign are the following : 

2 Caban o or 20 Pop. 

3 Eb o or 20 Pop. 
II Caban o or 20 Pop. 

9 Ik o or 20 Chen (J. T. G.) 
9 Ik o or 20 Yax or Zac. 

The month glyph of the last example looks like Zac. If it 
is Yax it proves Goodman's theory by calculation. 

Thus we see that in three out of four cases in the Dresden 
Codex and in three cases out of four in the Inscriptions where the 
context is such as to throw light on the question, the evidence 
is in favor of concluding that the months began with a day o or 20 
and not with a day i. Moreover in the single case in the Codex 
which tends to prove the contrary, it is interesting to see that the 
month glyph, Xul, is somewhat different from the other Xul 
glyphs, while in the doubtful case in the inscriptions, if the month 
glyph had been Chen and not Mol, it would have agreed with the 
dates before and after it. In other words, the calculations both 
before and after the date in question would be quite accurate if the 
month were Chen and if, therefore, the beginning day were o or 20, 



Ilopan, 




Altar U, 


I 


to 


2 


a 




11 


u, 


51 


to 


52 


Temple 


of the Cross, 


,Q 


2 


P 


3 


<( 


(( 11 


a 


F 


12 


E 


13 


li 


ii ce 


ii 


EF9 







6 JVAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE MAYA MONTH 

while the glyph of Mol makes the calculation after that date 
inaccurate. 

All the evidence taken gives a very strong presumption in favor 
of Goodman's theory that the month began with o or 20. 

It is also interesting to notice that of the other dates given 
above where the calculation does not help us, three of these are 
o or 20 Pop (provided we have identified the number glyph 
correctly, which is certainly none of the known glyphs for any 
of the numbers i to 19). This date would not be significant if 
20 Pop were the last day of the month, but it would be very 
significant if it were the beginning day of the month, that is the 
beginning day of the New Year. I think, therefore, that it is safe 
to assume as a good working hypothesis that the beginning days 
of the month were designated as o or 20, and the last day of the 
month as 19. 

The second of our questions, — namely, whether this beginning 
day was called Day o or Day 20, — must now be taken up. Of 
course if we had decided that those cases which we have been 
considering represented the last days of the month, there would 
have been no question that the number glyphs which were not any 
of the numbers from i to 19 must be the number 20. It would 
have been very improbable that after having numbered the days 
of a month from i to 19 they would have called the last day o. 
But it is not as certain that they might not have called the begin- 
ning day of a month 20, considering that twenty days had passed 
of the preceding month, and that their count was regulated by the 
number of days which had passed. As far as the month dates are 
concerned, however, it is absolutely unimportant whether the 
beginning day is called O or 20. Goodman says that the Mayas 
had no need of a zero (following the Romans in this respect), 
since zero was of no use as a multiplier. This is hardly conclusive. 
It may be true, as Goodman says, that the Mayas in their month 



NUMBERED ZERO {OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 7 

dates spoke of the twenty days which had passed in the preceding 
month; but it is equally true that they may have expressed this 
idea by attaching the number zero to the beginning day on the 
ground that no days of the current month had elapsed. Indeed 
the latter explanation is the more credible, since, if they had 
spoken of the twenty days of the preceding month as having 
elapsed, it would seem possible at least, and perhaps probable, that 
they would have used the name of the preceding month as well, 
and would have called the beginning day of Yaxkin, for instance, 
20 Xul and not 20 Yaxkin. But this it seems they did not do, 
unless the instance on the Temple of the Cross and that of the 
Dresden Codex, already cited, would bear this construction. These 
instances, however, are contradicted by all the other cases and are 
themselves capable of a different interpretation. It would seem 
as if the Mayas probably called the beginning day of a month by 
the name of the current month, and that they attached the zero to 
it, meaning that no days of that month had elapsed. Moreover 
such a plan is very much easier for calculation and there is less 
liability to error; for it is natural to think of a day with the 
number 20 as following a day with the number 19 and as being the 
last day of a month containing 20 days, rather than the beginning 
day of a month. I do not place too much reliance on this, 
however, for it is hardly safe to argue back from what we at this 
time would consider the best thing to do, in order to find out what 
some other nation at some other time would have done. 

The chief evidence in favor of giving the o or 20 glyph the 
meaning of 20 is, that this glyph is often drawn with a hand 
stretching across its lower part, especially when the main part 
of the glyph is a face. Now the face glyphs which represent 
the cycle of 144,000 days and the katun of 7,200 days are very 
similar, except that the cycle glyph has also a hand across its 
lower part, and the cycle is equal to 20 katuns ; but this evidence 



X 



8 BEGINNING DA Y OF MA YA MONTH 



is somewhat weak, since it is clear that even if the o or 20 glyph 
should be decided to mean 20, in all calculations it is to be treated 
as o, as is proved by many of the inscriptions of Palenque, Piedras 
Negras, Copan, and elsewhere. 

On the whole, therefore, I think the weight of evidence is 
in favor of the hypothesis that the Mayas called the beginning 
days of their month Day o and numbered the days of their month 
from o to 19. 



K t\l 10 



WAS THE BEGINNING DAY OF THE 

MAYA MONTH NUMBERED ZERO 

(OR TWENTY) OR ONE? 



BY 



CHARLES P. BOWDITCH 



CAMBRIDGE 

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 

1901 



